Procedimientos administrativos para eventos de espeleología

African-Caribbean pupils turn towards distinct subcultures to resist differential treatment (Sewell, 1997). Sewell blames urban black youth culture that is regarded as anti-school and obsessed with the violence and hyper-masculinity of the street (Sewell, 1997, 2009). Sewell (1997) challenges the notion that institutional and teacher racism, were the only factors that lead African- Caribbean pupils to adopt a culture of resistance to schooling. Sewell suggests that the problem is not institutional racism but the unwillingness and inability of African-

Caribbean pupils to break away from an anti-school peer group (negative peer pressure) which sees street culture as more attractive. He argues that this black urban street behaviour tends to feed the stereotype that African-Caribbean students are more aggressive and ruder than white students. Teachers who share an ethnocentric view often assume that African- Caribbean boys in particular are against their authority, and Asian boys are the exact opposite. This result in a disproportionate amount of criticisms and conflict compared to other ethnic groups. This black resistive subculture draws on wider street culture which unfortunately is not conducive to academic success. Similarly, Youdell’s (2003) work reveals an inversion of the ‘coolness’ of black male identities within youth subcultures by some teachers who

reproduce black boys as being anti-school (Frosh et al., 2002). Bodily and linguistic practices are often negatively interpreted as culturally deficient and then constituted by the school’s organisational discourse as incompatible with active learning, and this can extend to black girls as well. Hence, the problem is perceived to be primarily with the black pupils and not necessarily with the school system.

It is important to note at this point that Strand’s (2008) analysis using the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England shows that black pupils from middle and high socio-economic status homes underachieve relative to white British pupils, despite high levels of commitment to education. They are susceptible to an ‘ethnic penalty’ despite possessing all the positive attributes that white middle-class pupils have. This suggests that something more than black pupil sub-culture might be responsible for their poor performances relative to their white counterparts.

is mainly responsible for African-Caribbean underachievement. Gillborn (2008) claims that there are some contemporary processes of schooling which amount to institutional racism that reproduces and sustains inequality and contributes to unequal outcomes. Gillborn (1990) contends that African Caribbean pupil’s adoption of an anti-school subculture was a 'negative coping mechanism’ devised as a counter-response to the unfair treatment they encountered in school. He found that African-Caribbean boys were viewed as a threat to teachers' authority and were reprimanded far more than white or Asian students for the same offence. Gillborn (1990) found that the most common response was to be drawn together in increasing opposition to the school. In the resulting anti-school subculture, students displayed cultural specific behaviours, such as speech and walking style, and sometimes responded angrily.

This resistive sub-cultural formation discussed above can be compared with the white working-class ‘lads’ theorised by Willis (1977). Willis (1977) contended that working class students create their own culture of resistance to school knowledge through, anti-school counter-culture in which they disqualify themselves from the opportunity to enter middle- class jobs. This arguably bears similarities to African-Caribbean ‘counter-cultures’ that emerge out of conflicts within the school environment and are influenced by schools’

dominant middle-class, ethnocentric values and the recognition of poor post school prospects and racism within schools and society (Foster et al., 1996).

Sewell (1997) further argues that when dealing with black underachievement it is useful to look beyond white racism and challenge the youth culture which still believes that doing well in school means 'acting white'. For these students, excelling in school, subjects them to being accused of 'acting white'. This was also identified in North America by Fordham and Ogbu

(1986) who found that a key factor which explained the relatively poor performance of African-American students was the 'negative coping mechanism' they developed to retain their individual and cultural identity while functioning in school and in the wider society.

This notion of ‘acting white’ was discussed by Carter (2006) who found that successful African-American students ran the risk of being labelled 'brainiacs'. Consequently, they resisted school work in order to avoid attracting animosity and minimise the risk of being ostracised by their peers. According to Carter (2006), successful African-American students developed elaborate strategies to cope with the burden of 'acting white’. They deflecting attention away from their academic attainment and tried to prove that they were still part of the black circle. They stressed their sporting performances, acted like 'comedians', befriended bullies and shared test and homework answers with lower attaining students. These African- American students achieved academic successful and maintained their ethnic identity by being adept at strategically moving between mainstream worlds of school and their peers, drawing from multiple cultural codes. Conversely, Gonzalez (1999) found that there were school environments where academic success had little or no connection with the notion of 'acting white’. Puerto Rican high achievers in an urban high school in the US were

academically successful while maintaining their ethnic identity.